On 10/6/07, Corey Osgood <corey.osgood at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I agree with Carl-Daniel, that we should probably switch to a non-svn
> based versioning scheme. For now, it avoids the headache of "how do we
> do it". It also means that down the road if we don't touch superiotool
> for 6 months, the version hasn't been bumped 300 times by LinuxBIOSv2
> commits, without ever touching the tool. Which means that if this ever
> starts making it into packages, maintainers don't have the headache of
> trying to figure out if there actually is an updated version or not.
> Just my 2 cents.
The patch that Ulf and I made should bump the revision number if (and
only if) one of the files in the superiotool/ directory changes.
I agree that using the SVN rev as the version # seems a little
non-standard, but when people mail in dumps to the list, it's really
nice to know exactly which version of the code was in the binary that
made that dump. What if the version # were something more standard
and we just printed out the SVN rev alongside it? Something like:
superiotool v0.2 -- built from svn r255687 on Sat Oct 6 13:56:31 EDT 2007